_initialize_inftarg

_initialize_inftarg

[Tom Tromey]

There are 3 functions in gdb named _initialize_inftarg:

    grep -n '^_initialize_inftarg' *.c /dev/null
    inftarg.c:839:_initialize_inftarg (void)
    win32-nat.c:1818:_initialize_inftarg (void)
    wince.c:1968:_initialize_inftarg (void)

I assume the win* ones are simply cut-and-paste error?

Tom

Re: _initialize_inftarg

[Andrew Cagney]

> There are 3 functions in gdb named _initialize_inftarg:
> 
>     grep -n '^_initialize_inftarg' *.c /dev/null
>     inftarg.c:839:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>     win32-nat.c:1818:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>     wince.c:1968:_initialize_inftarg (void)
> 
> I assume the win* ones are simply cut-and-paste error?

Er, yes - they should correspond to their file names.  I guess only one 
was linked in at any time.

Andrew

Re: _initialize_inftarg

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:19:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>There are 3 functions in gdb named _initialize_inftarg:
>>
>>    grep -n '^_initialize_inftarg' *.c /dev/null
>>    inftarg.c:839:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>    win32-nat.c:1818:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>    wince.c:1968:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>
>>I assume the win* ones are simply cut-and-paste error?
>
>Er, yes - they should correspond to their file names.  I guess only one 
>was linked in at any time.

That routine is pretty ancient.  It was apparently introduced by Steve
Chamberlain in 1995.

Does it really hurt for it to be called by that name, though?
_inftarg.c will never be linked for a windows gdb.  I think it was meant
to somewhat emulate the functionality of the similar function in
inftarg.c.

cgf

Re: _initialize_inftarg

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:19:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>>There are 3 functions in gdb named _initialize_inftarg:
>>>
>>>    grep -n '^_initialize_inftarg' *.c /dev/null
>>>    inftarg.c:839:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>>    win32-nat.c:1818:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>>    wince.c:1968:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>>
>>>I assume the win* ones are simply cut-and-paste error?
> 
>>
>>Er, yes - they should correspond to their file names.  I guess only one 
>>was linked in at any time.
> 
> 
> That routine is pretty ancient.  It was apparently introduced by Steve
> Chamberlain in 1995.
> 
> Does it really hurt for it to be called by that name, though?
> _inftarg.c will never be linked for a windows gdb.  I think it was meant
> to somewhat emulate the functionality of the similar function in
> inftarg.c.

True, for the sake of consistency though, I think a file called FILE.c 
should have _initialize_file() as the initialise function.

Andrew

Re: _initialize_inftarg

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:26:34PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:19:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>
>>>>There are 3 functions in gdb named _initialize_inftarg:
>>>>
>>>>   grep -n '^_initialize_inftarg' *.c /dev/null
>>>>   inftarg.c:839:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>>>   win32-nat.c:1818:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>>>   wince.c:1968:_initialize_inftarg (void)
>>>>
>>>>I assume the win* ones are simply cut-and-paste error?
>>
>>>
>>>Er, yes - they should correspond to their file names.  I guess only one 
>>>was linked in at any time.
>>
>>
>>That routine is pretty ancient.  It was apparently introduced by Steve
>>Chamberlain in 1995.
>>
>>Does it really hurt for it to be called by that name, though?
>>_inftarg.c will never be linked for a windows gdb.  I think it was meant
>>to somewhat emulate the functionality of the similar function in
>>inftarg.c.
>
>True, for the sake of consistency though, I think a file called FILE.c 
>should have _initialize_file() as the initialise function.

Ok.  I'll put this on my todo list.

cgf